Daniel Pipes writes on “Europe’s looming immigration problem”: New York Sun, 18 October 2005
Although our site has regularly accused Pipes of Islamophobia, in the interests of balance we thought it only fair to point out that his bigotry is in fact directed at all non-white “immigrants”.
The GALHA committee has issued a statement regarding comments in the Autumn 2005 issue of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist magazine.
GALHA press release, 16 October 2005
This statement can only be welcomed. On the other hand, the contact given is GALHA secretary George Broadhead, who is himself the author of an article in the same issue of G&LH magazine which includes the following passage:
“There are two terms that, increasingly, annoy us: Islamophobia and moderate Muslims. What we’d like to know is, first, what’s wrong with being fearful of Islam (there’s a lot to fear); and, second, what does a moderate Muslim do, other than excuse the real nutters by adhering to this barmy doctrine?”
Broadhead’s assertion – in the aftermath of 9/11 and 7/7 – that there are no such people as “moderate Muslims”, and that all adherents of Islam are implicated in the actions of a minority of extremists, strikes me as only marginally less poisonous than the material in G&LH magazine from which the GALHA committee now seeks to dissociate itself.
Incidentally, the GALHA website contains the following information about the author of the most blatantly Islamophobic article in G&LH magazine: “ works in the television industry. He was co-author with Sukie de la Croix of the satirical column Emerald City News which appeared weekly in London’s Capital Gay from 1987 to 1992. Their book of short stories Black Confetti: New Fairy Tales for an Old Country was reviewed in the Spring 1996 issue of Gay and Lesbian Humanist.”
So GALHA members who deny any knowledge of who Balaam is are perhaps being a trifle disingenuous.
Melanie Phillips complains that objections to the new anti-terrorism bill “betray more than a touch of hysteria and irrationality”. In contrast to her own balanced and reasoned contributions the debate, that is. According to Mel:
“The unpalatable fact is that this country has left itself wide open to terrorism. The judges pose as our society’s bulwark against tyranny. But frankly, they are the very last people upon whom we can rely. For with their obsession with ‘human rights’, it is the judges who have imperilled our safety by turning Britain into a magnet for terrorists and subversives. Through their interpretation of human rights law they have destroyed our border controls so that extremists could pour into the country knowing they would never be pursued.
“The judges frustrated all attempts to deal with illegal immigration, thwarted other countries’ desperate attempts to get Britain to extradite terrorist suspects, produced the lunatic situation where people who are a danger to this country cannot be deported in case they may be ill-treated, and when the government tried to lock them up instead to safeguard the public ruled that this too was contrary to human rights law….
“Other countries are far more robust. France has recently thrown out a number of Islamist extremists without demur. Even ultra-liberal Holland is planning to ban the burka in public places – following the example of several towns in Belgium and Italy – because a garment which conceals everything except the eyes obviously makes identification impossible and is therefore an unacceptable security risk.”
“An Islamic organisation facing a ban under terrorism laws has launched a campaign to recruit university students using an anti-racist front organisation. An undercover Sunday Times investigation has established that the party, Hizb ut-Tahrir, has been recruiting under the name Stop Islamophobia at University College London (UCL), the School of African and Oriental Studies, Luton University and other institutions.”
Another episode in the anti-Hizb witch-hunt, in this case inspired by the ridiculous and discredited Glees report.
For Hizb reply, see here.
“Immigration, particularly of Muslims, has long been an issue in Europe, a challenge to overburdened welfare systems and to the self-image of countries where every village hoists a church spire to the sky. But what was once a subject of debate is now more a matter of survival. Difficulty, for many in the Netherlands, has become danger…. The murders, in 2002 and 2004 respectively, of the taboo-trampling politician Pym Fortuyn and the Islam-bashing movie director Theo van Gogh have left the Dutch bereft of certainties. They are not alone in their questioning. Islam is now of Europe, a European religion. But Europe, after terrorist killings in Madrid and Amsterdam and London, sees more threat than promise in the immigrant tide from its Muslim fringes.”
Roger Cohen in the International Herald Tribune, 16 October 2005
Cohen interviews right-wing Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali who explains that “immigrants from rural areas, most of them, are at a certain phase of civilization that is far behind that of the host countries, like the Netherlands, and because of that, these terrible events can occur”. She goes on: “All of Europe is in a state of denial. It thinks these killings will go away, but they will not. The Holy Book says infidels must be destroyed.”
Yes, seriously, that’s the headline to a report in the Sunday Times. Matthew Campbell writes: “Holland’s Muslims have responded with outrage to government proposals to ban the burqa [in fact, any form of Islamic veil covering the face], and there are fears that Rita Verdonk, the minister behind the move, will be added to a list of ‘enemies of Islam’ targeted for assassination.”
Campbell adds: “For a country that has legalised gay marriage, prostitution, euthanasia and cannabis, Holland seems in no mood for compromise when it comes to applying tough laws on immigration.” This argument, notoriously promoted by Pim Fortuyn, that it is necessary to crack down on Muslim migrants in order to defend “our” progressive values, is becoming increasingly common. Even the BNP use it on occasion.
“In times of war on terror, the risk is that free speech will be the first casualty. The tension between free speech and the safety of the population is a genuine one. Charles Clarke, the home secretary, has just modified part of the Terrorism Bill which dealt with ‘glorifying’ terrorism. Imams and others will now be prosecuted only if their remarks are seen as as inducements to further terrorist acts. Most people will have little problem with such a law. The fact that certain people, mainly radical Muslims, have abused our tolerance to incite acts of terror has rightly provoked anger.
“Where there is a problem, however, is with another government assault on free speech that has no direct connection with terrorism – the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. If it becomes law, anybody who publishes or says anything ‘likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom it is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred’ will be committing an offence that could make them liable to a seven-year prison term.
“This bill has so far attracted most attention because of the efforts of comedians such as Rowan Atkinson. They have argued that it would prevent them poking even gentle fun at any religion. It also featured during the election campaign when Mr Clarke – billing himself as ‘Labour’s home secretary’ – wrote to every mosque in the country highlighting Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition to the proposals. There was a clear implication that the government was trying to secure the Muslim vote.”
Editorial in the Sunday Times, 16 October 2005
Short version: laws that penalise Muslims, good; laws that protect Muslims, bad.
“Most American must realize by now that President Bush will claim almost anything to justify the constantly escalating tragedy of his Iraq policy. So atop his long refusal to drop the implied linkage of Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush’s vision of an attempt to create a ‘radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia’ is not surprising…. The frightful terms with which Bush warns of rampant Islamism recall the ‘yellow peril’ that once obsessed U.S. opponents of immigration from Asia, and the tales of Mohammedan conquest that fueled the Crusades…. The Osama bin Ladens have not managed to take over a tiny Persian Gulf fiefdom much less an actual country in their regions of maximum strength…. The Islamic ’empire’ promises to be a storybook affair for many decades after Bush has left the White House.”
Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, reproduced by Muslim News, 14 October 2005
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch endorses Daniel Pipes’ verdict on Bush’s speech. But Spencer argues that the president should be more specific in his condemnation of Islamist terrorists and “announce that we are at war with their supremacist, expansionist ideology, which arises from Islam”. Still, the overall verdict is positive: “The force of events has brought the President far. Before he is done, he is likely to have gone farther still.”
A former aide to Robert Kilroy Silk has launched a group which aims to fight back at what it views as “Islamofascism”. Tony Bennett, who worked as a researcher for the former politician and television presenter, is recruiting members for the Active Resistance to Islamification, which plans to “erect one sign or symbol that is offensive to those sensitive Muslim flowers in our midst for every one they succeed in removing from our society”.
Bennett, who believes Islam is an “evil force” but insists that he “doesn’t believe in discrimination”, added: “Last week one Muslim said he was offended by a picture of a pig and demanded that all things resembling pigs at his work were removed.” In retaliation Bennett painted a St George’s cross on a “Welcome to Harlow” road sign. Last year he left the UK Independence party after describing the prophet Muhammad as a paedophile.